2014-06-21 Still time for interveners to write BCUC

1) RF Rad reduces melatonin which reduces sleep time

Studies have shown that exposure to RF radiation reduces the amount of melatonin the pineal gland produces. Inadequate levels of melatonin result in poor sleep, especially the deep sleep needed for your body to recover from the damage done to it during the day. This recent study indicates that reduction in melatonin could cause tinnitus, which many people suffer after smart meters are put on their homes.

2) Still time to appeal BCUC legacy meter decision

BCUC legacy decision appeal until June 25. Attached is the criteria and a request for comments by a member. Click here to read it.

Excellent letter in the letters section.

Dear Fellow Interveners,

You must have received the attached communication from the BCUC regarding the Application for Reconsideration.

If you read the instructions carefully, you will see that this is the first phase when the BCUC accepts written comments from BC Hydro and Interveners by Wednesday June 25, then the Applicants can submit a reply by July 3.

After that, “the Commission will determine whether or not the reconsideration should proceed. If the reconsideration proceeds to the second phase, the parties will be allowed to sddress the substance of the issues that the commission approves for reconsideration”.

The comments of this first phase should be on “whether the Applicants have submitted an Application with a reasonable basis to allow a reconsideration”. You will find the complete document with the instructions in the first attachment.

I hope you will consider sending in a comment by June 25. Whether or not this application will be allowed to proceed, I think we should use any opportunity to make ourselves heard and cause as much trouble to BC Hydro and the government as possible.

Thank you all for your help!

3) It costs HOW MUCH to read an analog meter?

From a member who was studying Hydro’s submission to BCUC and found that Hydro says it costs $27.90 to read a meter.

If people had either read the Meter Choices Program Decision or had been aware of BC Hydro and their $27.90 manual meter read charge, as part of the two-month Legacy Meter Charge, they could have submitted their own bill with their actual meter reading- not BC Hydro’s estimate- and they could have shown the justified -$27.90 deduction.

BC Hydro has yet to contact us or mail us an adjusted bill, or show our account balance, which should be $0.

4) In ONTARIO you may be paying more per kWh as you decrease your usage – WHAT?

Ontario Energy Board is considering a new way to charge people – where the person using little would pay more and the energy hog would pay less.

Letters:

As an intervener in the BCUC’s examination into the BC Hydro Meter Choices Program, I support Prof. Spogliarich’s request for a review of the BCUC’s findings and determination. In his request Prof. Splogliarich amply demonstrates that significant and relevant factors were overlooked by the BCUC in its decision to approve BCH’s fee structure with only negligible adjustments.

Perhaps the most important shortcoming in BCUC’s considerations was the lack of an independent audit of BCH’s cost accounting for having to maintain a program allowing customers to retain their analogue meters. Prof. Spogliarich has presented a clear and detailed summary of fees levied by electric utilities across North America, which reveals that nowhere are fees so onerous as those of BCH. There has been no explanation for this discrepancy, which surely calls into question the means used by BCH to determine its fee structure.

As he also pointed out, the BC government admitted that these high fees would have the effect of forcing large numbers of customers to acquiesce to BCH’s smart meter program simply because for many the fees for retaining analogues would be prohibitive. At the very least, this implies that part of the reason for the highest fees in North America was to deter customers from refusing smart meters, which has nothing to do with the true costs of having to maintain an analogue contingent among customers. The BCUC failed to investigate this aberration, and erred in approving a fee structure that appears to have been largely designed to force people to accept smart meters against their wishes.

In my view, this presents a prima facie case to request that the BCUC review its decision as per Sections 99 and 100 of the Utilities Commission Act: the Commission has made an error in fact, and a basic principle has not been raised.

Respectfully, XXX Intervener

————————–

Written by a resister in California to a person in Missouri where the smart meter program is just beginning.

I would encourage her to take action if that’s at all a possibility for her, while advising her of the risks either way. Refer her to stopsmartmeters.org, particularly the pages ‘take action’ and ‘take direct action’, to get some ideas of what others have done, and so she knows she’s not alone.

People here in California have engaged plenty with the PUC and the utilities, but it wasn’t until people took matters into their own hands, prevented installations by locking up their analogs, blocking installers’ trucks both at the deployment yards and in the neighborhoods, and replaced the digital meters with those analogs that the ‘professionals’ seem to think no longer exist, that things shifted. After that they introduced the ‘opt out’ scheme that’s in place here now.

But we didn’t give up there, because we understand that individual ‘opt outs’ do not solve the inherent problems of living in neighborhoods full of electrosmog, let alone opting out of that one meter on an apartment building wall of dozens of your neighbors’ meters right next to your bed. So there are quite a few people here who have locked up their ‘opt out’ analog meters yet again, and have been refusing to pay the ‘opt out’ extortion fees. So far, in California it looks like the only ones who have had their power shut off for not paying those fees (while paying all their energy uses however) are Josh’s family, but I believe there have been a number of cases elsewhere in the country. I believe the reason why the utilities are not following through on the many shut off notices that have been sent to fee resisters is because the California PUC has been postponing its decision making process on this issue for years now, so things are in a bit of a holding pattern. So the situation here is slightly different than elsewhere.

There are obviously risks involved in taking action that is considered illegal by these criminal utilities and government agencies. We know that people have had their power shut off for refusing to go along, and some have been arrested for blocking installations. For many people with disabilities these may not be risks they can take, or at least not without a lot of help from the community. What do you do if you depend on life saving medical equipment that relies on electricity, and the utility bullies you into accepting a toxic gadget on your home by turning off the power and the equipment your life depends on? But if the community or fellow activists are supportive, these are not necessarily insurmountable obstacles. A friendly neighbor whose power is still on, might allow a long extension cord, or perhaps a solar-powered generator could be donated.

There are also risks involved in not taking action and letting this program move forward unchallenged. I know a number of people here who have been driven from their homes and communities by these meters, who have been homeless as a result. Where are they supposed to go when this program is sweeping the country and the globe, and we’re hearing about the ‘Smart’ grid and cell towers showing up even in the forests? People need to speak up, to take action, to inform, encourage, and lead by example, so that others catch on and get involved.

We cannot do this alone, and every single person who finds the courage to participate in their own way makes it possible for others to find their own courage